This(found on fark) article needs to be shared with everyone because it astounds me, basically its talking about banning words from textbooks, but not words that are understandable, alot come off as very silly, like “sea” though I’m not totally sure it can be serious, does this not disturb anyone greatly?
It almost seems as if political correctness is being taken too seriously.
Ravitch was on The Daily Show a while back. Her comments were amusing - it’s not too different from what’s said in the article. She intentionally goes to absurdity sometimes - can you ban the word “man” altogether? I doubt it. You can’t call someone an old man, perhaps - but why would a history book do that anyway? Some of the words don’t need to be in there. Most of it is excessive anyway, though. If they’re skipping literature because of it, that’s also cause for concern.
This gets the same comment most of those “look at this outrageous PC-ness” stories get from me: the impulse is OK, the action is very stupid.
Oh for Og’s sake, that is without question the stupidest thing I’ve heard this week. Gah, I wish this was in the Pit!
QED
that can be arranged .)
Was that story for real? “Old” is ageist? How? Well, I suppose in the same way that "handicapped’ is whatever -ist it is. They’re words that accurately describe what some wish never be mentioned.
I am SO hoping that this article is a hoax.
On the other hand, I’ve run in to people who expect everyone to TALK like this - at least in the workplace - so I’m not surprised by anything.
But then, I’m an aging, white, homosexual man who does not have a boyish figure and who likes to say hell and damn and even “friggin’-tarnation” - so what would I know?
Tarnationist
Q.E.D. said it all, I think. I, too wish this was in the Pit so as I could fully express my opinion of it. Who knows, maybe by the time I get there (I work down the list, don’t you know) I’ll find something on it.
“In case a student lives inland and doesn’t grasp the concept of a large body of water.” What if a student lives on an island and can’t grasp the concept of a large body of land? Should all history except for that of the Polynesians be banned in Hawaii?
I heard Dianne Ravitch interviewed on Fresh Air several weeks ago on this book. It is not a hoax, TV Guy.
Remember, boys and girls, Heck is where people go when they don’t believe in Gosh.
Well, I guess “rimjob” is out of the question then.
Sigh. It’s a shame but the article is not a joke. They, the publishing companies, are really doing what the article says they are doing.
Let’s dumb it down for the lowest common denomimator. That way all are kids will be dumb kids.
Oh, shame on me. I used the ‘D’ word.
I have an overwhelming urge to kick that woman in the shins.
So, does anyone have an example of an actual sentence that was found objectionable from an actual textbook? I have a hard time seeing the need to quell usage of such words as “babe”.
Additionally, in case anyone has not read the article, Dianne Ravitch is not the one imposing language policing on anyone. On the contrary, she’s the one who’s complaining about the language police. (Although it doesn’t sound so much like “complaining” as “pointing out”.) That may not be clear just from reading this thread.
Whoosh.
The reason Ravitch wrote the book is to draw attention to the ridiculousness of this practice, not to perpetuate a need for it. She’s on the side of reason, not the other way around.
I think your ire may be misdirected. At least, the way I read the article, What’s-her-name (what’s-it’s-name?) is not the advocate/driving force for all this PC-mumbo-jumbo, but rather she is the one making it public knowledge i.e. pointing out what is common practice in the publishing world, but not common knowledge. Well, that was a seriously long run-on sentence.
Just for the record, I also think this is a load of hooey and people are just way too gosh-darned sensitive, especially when it comes to not wanting to offend anyone. Phooey I say!
This post has been edited by The Language Police.